[05:42] <mborzecki> morning
[07:08] <pstolowski> morning
[07:10] <mborzecki> pstolowski: hey
[07:11] <mborzecki> mvo: hey, the last day of sprint!
[07:19] <mvo> mborzecki: good morning!
[07:19] <mvo> mborzecki: yeah
[07:29] <mup> PR snapd#8979 closed: tests: more checks in core20 early config spread test <Run nested> <Test Robustness> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8979>
[08:01] <mborzecki> zyga wrote me he's off today
[08:24] <jamesh> mborzecki: I think this might be the root cause of that parallel install problem reported on the forum: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/parallel-instances-cant-remove-cant-connect-interfaces-cant-use-layouts-env-vars-are-wrong/18696/8?u=jamesh
[08:25] <jamesh> i.e. whether a non-instance keyed version of the snap is installed or not
[08:25] <mborzecki> jamesh: we ensure that my-snap directory exists when  my-snap or my-snap_* gets installed
[08:26] <mborzecki> jamesh: or at least we did and had some tests for it, let me double check the tests are actually testing the right thing
[08:27] <mborzecki> jamesh: fwiw, quick install of a random snap with instance key creates the snap-name (without instance key) directory
[08:28] <jamesh> mborzecki: it certainly looks like the $SNAP mount is failing somehow, based on his message
[08:40] <mborzecki> jamesh: asked more questions there, i suspect it's something else being broken here
[08:40] <mborzecki> sadly zyga is off today
[09:45] <mup> PR snapd#8995 opened: osutil: add CheckFreeSpace helper (1/N) <Disk space awareness> <Needs Samuele review> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8995>
[11:45] <mborzecki> seriously it's hard to tell when soemone is trolling or being misinformed
[11:49] <mborzecki> running spread tests for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/1887134
[11:49] <mup> Bug #1887134: Purging of snapd package should remove all files in / installed by snaps <amd64> <apport-bug> <bionic> <eoan> <focal> <groovy> <xenial> <snapd (Ubuntu):In Progress by maciek-borzecki> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1887134>
[11:49] <mborzecki> quick errand, back in 30
[12:19] <ijohnson> do we have anywhere in the snapd codebase where we wait for systemd units to become active ?
[12:21] <ijohnson> mborzecki: do you know ?
[12:21] <ijohnson> pstolowski: or maybe anything we do in managing snap services? I seem to remember we did something like this somewhere but I can't find it
[12:25] <pstolowski> ijohnson: one sec
[12:25] <mborzecki> ijohnson: let me check, iirc we had --no-wait for some actions
[12:25] <ijohnson> haha thanks folks
[12:25] <mborzecki> ijohnson: but systemctl start waits for unit to become active (where the meaning of active depends on the type of unit)
[12:25] <ijohnson> there's systemd.IsActive
[12:26] <mborzecki> that's a thin wrapper around systemctl is-active
[12:27] <ijohnson> mmm so actually I'm using systemd-mount from the initramfs
[12:27] <ijohnson> and looking at the docs it says this
[12:27] <ijohnson> > the job will be verified, enqueued and systemd-mount will wait until the mount or automount unit's start-up is completed.
[12:28] <ijohnson> it's not clear to me though that means the unit is active, it kinda seems like that means the unit exists, not necessarily that the mount is done
[12:28] <mborzecki> ijohnson: there's StartNoBlock but it's used only for snapd services on core18+
[12:29] <mborzecki> ijohnson: iirc for mounts we have some special handling in link.go that double checks that snap metadata is present at the mount location
[12:29] <ijohnson> mmm ok, yeah it seems like we don't have what I thought we had
[12:29] <ijohnson> thanks for looking!
[12:30] <mborzecki> ijohnson: err, it's in snapstate/handlers.go in doMountSnap
[12:30] <mborzecki> ijohnson: there's a for loop that retries readInfo right after SetupSnap
[12:46] <mup> PR snapd#8996 opened: packaging, cmd/snap-mgmt, tests: remove modules files on purge <Bug> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8996>
[13:16] <mborzecki> cmatsuoka: what input the new split helper fails on?
[13:16] <cmatsuoka> mborzecki: ==a, a==, maybe a lone =?
[13:17] <mborzecki> haha
[13:17] <mborzecki> let me try that
[13:17] <cmatsuoka> I mean, it's not that it fails, but I don't know what the kernel thinks about that
[13:23] <mborzecki> cmatsuoka: me neither, probably ignores that because what else can you do at this point
[13:24] <cmatsuoka> probably it will ignore all ill-formed parameters
[13:24] <cmatsuoka> well, or maybe parse it partially, who knows
[13:24] <cmatsuoka> s/it/them/
[13:59] <mup> PR snapcraft#3209 opened: extensions/desktop/common: add snapd gl vdapu dir to LD_LIBRARY_PATH <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3209>
[14:01] <ogra> ijohnson, ^^^ that should be vdpau not vdapu ...
[14:02] <ijohnson> man I open one PR to snapcraft and 2 people tell me it's got a typo within less than 2 minutes
[14:03] <ogra> teamwork !
[18:07] <mup> PR snapd#8997 opened: packaging: add "ca-certificates" to build-depends <Simple 😃> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8997>
[18:12] <mup> PR snapd#8998 opened: tests/cmd/snap-bootstrap/initramfs-mounts: fix typo <Simple 😃> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8998>
[18:55] <mup> PR snapcraft#3210 opened: docker: install snapd dependency <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3210>
[19:42] <mup> PR snapd#8997 closed: packaging: add "ca-certificates" to build-depends <Simple 😃> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8997>
[19:57] <mup> PR snapd#8983 closed: tests: add tests.cleanup helper <Created by zyga> <Merged by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8983>
[23:10] <mup> Bug #1887204 opened: Snap is not clear about partial strict confinement <Snappy:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1887204>
[23:13] <mup> Bug #1887204 changed: Snap is not clear about partial strict confinement <Snappy:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1887204>
[23:19] <mup> Bug #1887204 opened: Snap is not clear about partial strict confinement <Snappy:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1887204>